Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • GOVERNMENT UNDER P-LAW —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my stro

    GOVERNMENT UNDER P-LAW

    —“I can’t see anywhere in P that conflicts with my strong belief in Republicanism. Am I correct?”— Robert

    You can create any form of government with P-law you just have to state it truthfully and reciprocally in a constitution.

    A republican government refers to elected representatives. But that is all. It doesn’t tell us who does the electing. And it doesn’t state the strengths, weaknesses, and limits of republican governments.

    But the limit of any democratic government is homogeneity and scale. To create prosperity we incrementally add to the division of labor. As the division of labor increases the division of political interest diverges. The homogeneity of the people limits the conflict between those interests and the heterogeneity of the people increases the heterogeneity of those interests.

    So heterogeneity breaks down democratic processes and generates demand for authority instead. When the democratic process fails, people resort to political activism outside of the government as we see today at the cost of truth, reciprocity, harmony and the civil society creating the chaos we see today.

    We are too tolerant of competitors to rule of law (false promise, baiting into hazard), homogeneity, and markets in everything, including markets in political representatives as proxies for markets for political policy. We should be ruthlessly intolerant of those competitors.

    The general presumption was that we would elect people who were demonstrably capable in the making of policy (the senate as the professionals) and people who were capable in limiting the popular acceptability of policy (house of representatives as the jury) together continuing the adversarialism of our ancestral argument before the jury – but the house was given too much power, and changing the constitution creating the popular election of senators destroyed the professionalism of the senate, and gave via positiva power to the jury (house).

    The optimum form of representative government is rule of law of natural law, constitutional monarchy as judge of last resort (veto, nullification, dismissal power), a cabinet of professional executives (appointed by the senate vetoed by the monarchy), and houses of parliament including one for regions, one for business and industry, and either one family under one household one vote, or two houses separated into labor and mothers, if under one person one vote. The constitution fully enumerates rights and obligations, and requires strict construction of legislation and regulation, and that the court does not veto the legislation and regulation, and that the monarchy does not veto the legislation and regulation. In P-Law we correctly label legislation as ‘contracts of the commons’. There is only one law, and and the findings of the law under that law.

    The alternative optimum form of government would eliminate the representatives and therefore the power of political parties and special interests, and provide the people with collective(propositional) and transactional (line item) veto. This is the optimum form of government and is now possible due to technology. This would eliminate the house of representatives, and limit the senate to representatives of the governors of the several states OR, use the governors of the several states as the senators.

    The constitution and the law provide a sliding scale of authority from the senate (republic-production) in ordinary times, the monarchy in times of war(concentration), and the houses or people in times of windfalls (redistribution) which is a minor improvement on the roman model.

    This entire system is predicated upon a universal militia, a constitution of natural law that they swear to defend, and an independent judiciary sufficiently self-auditing, and sufficiently fearful of the militia that the court can adjudicate disputes under the law.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 09:50:00 UTC

  • OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can des

    OUR PURPOSE, OUR CONTROL

    He who can defend a thing, owns a thing. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing. The men who can defend or destroy, always own and control things. The question is only whether they act to control things they own. This is why a universal militia is required to produce rule of law – the power to deny power. And this is why only western man has rule of law – individual sovereignty. And with the introduction of metal, the spear, then the sword, then the bow, then the rifle, the militia increasingly obtained power, to deny power. The purpose of the militia is to create the power to deny power, so that no one else has the power to control things or destroy things – leaving only sovereignty and reciprocity under the natural law as means of survival. Therefore the host of men must exercise control of things in order to prevent control of things, leaving only the natural law, and and the markets for reciprocity within them.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-16 07:50:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY TEST OF YOUR IDEAS IS LAW (natural law is to human sciences, as mathema

    THE ONLY TEST OF YOUR IDEAS IS LAW

    (natural law is to human sciences, as mathematics is to physical sciences)

    If you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in.

    You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t.

    And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. And the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain.

    But we all test that limit at every opportunity.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-15 12:50:00 UTC

  • Every man a sheriff: Heroism&Excellence, Truth&Duty, Sovereignty&Reciprocity, Re

    Every man a sheriff: Heroism&Excellence, Truth&Duty, Sovereignty&Reciprocity, Regardless of Cost. https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1249365466038112257

  • MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and

    MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME?

    Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals.

    See?

    Here:

    Human Logical Facility (constant relations) >

    …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) >

    …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) >

    …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) >

    …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) >

    …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) >

    …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) >

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) >

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying)

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial

    …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence

    (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 08:33:00 UTC

  • “In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics whe

    —“In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining?”—Billy Law-Bregan

    Smart. Good thinking. Good question.

    In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable)

    In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ).

    So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits.

    MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total.

    LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total.

    STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total

    All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit.

    Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-12 08:33:00 UTC

  • SEE? P-LAW WORKS FOR BOTH GENDERS. 😉 —“P law makes young ladies think I am th

    SEE? P-LAW WORKS FOR BOTH GENDERS. 😉

    —“P law makes young ladies think I am the master dating coach who can help them from being defrauded by parasites and by MGTOW pickup artists”—Maria Al Masani Makienko

    CD: That’s gotta be my favorite quote from a female yet. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 14:51:00 UTC

  • “LEARN RECIPROCITY. THE REST IS JUST ITERATIVE. ” —“Reciprocity is the bottom

    “LEARN RECIPROCITY. THE REST IS JUST ITERATIVE. “

    —“Reciprocity is the bottom line. Once you get that, I think most of the rest is iterative.”—William Wallace

    Sage advice on learning P.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 14:43:00 UTC

  • PROSECUTION ONLINE I have for a decade now, taught the same strategy. 1. Return

    PROSECUTION ONLINE

    I have for a decade now, taught the same strategy.

    1. Return any taunt they made as dispassionately as possible.

    2. Call them a liar or failing due diligence.

    3. State your central argument

    4. repeat until they are exhausted.

    All they do with every cycle is provide you with opportunity to recite the same statements “you are lying, either by design, or by failure of due diligence, [this is the truth], you can either refute it by testimony and warranty within the limits of liability (… 1. Refutation), or offer an equally criticizable solution to the question so that we can judge it’s possibility costs and benefits (2. Competition.), or seek to understand what you clearly don’t (3. Question). But at present you are [lying, denying, fictionalizing, sophistry, pseusocience,mysticism, impossibility, irreciprocity].

    Just do the same thing over and over again and they will eventually expose themselves out of frustration – works every time if you stick with it over time.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 13:21:00 UTC

  • One does not sell a liar – one prosecutes him. You cannot get them to agree. So

    One does not sell a liar – one prosecutes him.

    You cannot get them to agree. So deny the enemy the field.

    You can leave them defeated such that they come to their own conclusions.

    But no man is a hero to his debtors.


    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-11 13:13:00 UTC